The New York City Charter Review Commission has announced its consideration of a “top-two” system for mayoral elections, which could transform the electoral landscape in the city. This proposal involves introducing a qualifying round that allows all voters to participate, with the top two candidates advancing to the general election.
Currently, New York utilizes ranked-choice voting (RCV) for party primaries, a process where voters rank candidates by preference and votes transfer until a winner is identified. However, the general elections in the city still rely on a single-vote system.
The Commission’s proposal has two significant alterations. Firstly, it suggests replacing party primaries with a nonpartisan winnowing round employing RCV, referred to by advocates as an “open primary,” although this does not actually select party nominees. Secondly, only the top two candidates would advance to the general election, effectively creating a runoff.
This potential shift has led to growing concern among political scientists, who mostly view the expansion of the “top-two” system beyond its current states—California, Nebraska, Washington, and Louisiana—as risky. Critics mainly argue that it presents the danger of a general election featuring two candidates from the same party.
While critics of the system vary in their reasoning, many assert that such a scenario diminishes democratic choice, while others suggest it may lead to reduced voter turnout or further marginalization of minor parties. Moreover, the effectiveness of the top-two system in moderating political stances has come under scrutiny as well.
The present electoral structure in New York City may also be fraught with challenges, particularly as the city braces for a potentially crowded mayoral race this November. As it stands, a four- or five-way contest could result in candidates splitting critical constituencies, possibly allowing a candidate to win with less than a majority of the votes.
Some advocates for reform argue that leveraging ranked-choice voting in the general election would serve to mitigate this issue. For instance, a candidate like Brad Lander could encourage his supporters to rank their preferences among the leading contenders, creating a more collaborative approach that might ensure the eventual winner secures a broader base of support.
However, opponents counter that such cooperation among candidates is overly optimistic. They cite deeply entrenched divisions within the Democratic elite as a significant hurdle. In defense of the RCV approach, supporters might highlight instances of successful voter engagement, arguing that elections are as much about connecting with voter sentiments, or “vibes,” as they are about policy.
Despite the enthusiasm surrounding RCV, some critiques argue that it’s based on unrealistic expectations. Research cited in a recent piece for City Journal highlights a troubling trend where more than half of modern RCV elections—52.4 percent—end in “majoritarian failure,” meaning the winning candidate garnered less than half of all votes cast. This situation can arise when voters either choose not to rank their preferences or when they rank candidates who are eliminated early.
While the recent primary that saw Zohran Mamdani emerge victorious did not face these issues, it raises questions about the effectiveness of more open or inclusive electoral formats. If such a race were not a party primary but rather a broader RCV election that included various factions—from left-wing Democrats to establishment Democrats and even more conservative Republican candidates—the dynamics could drastically shift.
Lessons from other countries employing similar systems reveal valuable insights. For instance, in Australia, where voters are mandated to rank all their choices and substantial efforts are placed on voter education, the invalid-ballot rate hovers around 5 percent. This statistic suggests that the voting process assumes a significant level of educational attainment and familiarity with the political landscape, which may not be applicable in New York City.
Given that debates surrounding RCV often become mired in complex counterfactual considerations, it might be wise for the city to embrace the Charter Commission’s proposal. The RCV qualifying round followed by a top-two general election could yield a candidate who genuinely holds majority support among voters in this decisive phase of the electoral process.
However, if New York moves forward with this system, careful implementation will be crucial. Currently, the Commission proposes that ballots indicate the party affiliation of candidates, provided they are registered members. This approach could create confusion among voters.
To illustrate, consider the sample ballot from Alaska’s 2022 nonpartisan primary, where the amalgamation of RCV with a “top-four” qualifying round rendered party labels nearly irrelevant. Any individual can register as a Democrat or Republican, which dilutes the clarity of party affiliation, potentially confusing voters during the ranking process.
To enhance the effectiveness of the new system and help voters navigate the landscape, it would be prudent to allow parties to maintain control over which candidates can use their labels. This would provide critical guidance for voters as they rank candidates during the qualifying round.
Although this approach may receive pushback from certain activist circles, it is essential to recognize that most voters do not operate as activists; they seek clear and usable information when making choices at the ballot box.
New York might consider granting nomination authority to district committee conventions and retaining elements of ballot fusion, where candidates can appear on multiple party lines. Each candidate could be listed once on the ballot alongside their party endorsements, which could streamline the process for voters.
While there is no perfect solution to the challenges at hand and new parties may continue to emerge, enabling parties to maintain a vetting process is arguably more effective than an outright abandonment of such a framework. This strategy may also pave the way for more straightforward identification of the top candidates, allowing voters to assess their choices with clearer information about their political affiliations.
Historically, electoral reform discussions often echo ideas proposed by thinkers like Lewis Carroll, who over a century ago suggested a refined version of RCV to ensure that elections yield majority winners. Carroll advocated for the use of runoffs until RCV could consistently deliver candidates who reflect the majority of voter preferences. This perspective still finds support among academics today.
In conclusion, while ranked-choice voting has its share of issues, it also garners significant support. If applied thoughtfully, a top-two electoral format could enhance the existing system, leading to a more effective and coherent election process.
image source from：city-journal
